I decided to renew the same issue in a new thread.
Maybe a fresh start will get a matrix guy to click here at least once. Are they reading any of the posts?
Matrix, ignore Byron. He didn't mean to apologize to madflava13 who is obviously quite mentally disturbed to want to play the game without a true emphasis on production which IMHO goes to the core of the game. The conflict was as Warpup pointed out, about resources.
I still think the idea of building units from pools is the right way to go. Research and 'tweeks' could accelerate/change what goes into the pool and would follow a progression. I.E. you have to build and deploy an F4F before you could get an F6F assuming you researched and tested the F6F.
I think sliders could be used but I still prefer a system of gathering resources (At whatever complexity/matrix/ or simple way you wish) and converting them to OP points that a player can allocate to different things.
Allocation to research increses the chance of 'discovering' new A/C, radar, torpedoes, etc.
Allocation to HQ's to get troops and TF's to do anything.
Allocation to intel to 'divine' the others moves.
Allocation to Industry to increse production capacity (Increase resource to Op efficiency)
Allocation to build factories to produce, Art, Tanks, A/C ships.
Allocation to repair damaged ships.
Allocation to increses shipyard/Arifield expansion
Allocation to train pilots/soldiers
Allocation to build ships (Sliders here perhaps to designate OP's to different classes)
Allocation to shut me up about allocations!
You get the drift. With such a sytem, a player can have superb control of his country's future in the war or you could choose historical or choose a leader to run the system like an AI Gen Marshall.
I would be surious most of all just to know what Matrix is thinking/doing?
Production, Bend Over Here It Comes Again
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Mr. Snake, I am mentally disturbed, but thats a seperate issue... hehe I would be fine with a production system that has a toggle for historical/player control. I liked Warpup's idea of not allowing the player to build/pick individual units. If there's going to be a production system modeled, I think too much detail will kill it. Putting the level of detail people want would be nice, but I think it opens the game up to too many bugs and that would hurt the overall project. I of course only bow to the production minded folks assuming that adding this level of control will not delay the game more. I am pretty ready for this to be released, since I play Pacwar constantly and I feel like it's older than me... jk. So, to sum up, I'll surrender my arguments against production controls if its done in a way that won't slow the project, doesn't create to many bugs, and can be toggled on and off.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
-
Joel Billings
- Posts: 33541
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
Don't blame Matrix for not jumping into these posts. The issue of production as far as the new Pac War game is entirely in Gary Grigsby's hands. I'm not even sure what Gary has planned for production at this point as we haven't discussed it. To date we've been very focused on getting the basic game engine working in Uncommon Valor, and other than database work on WitP, there hasn't been any programming that is unique to WitP. Once Gary has actually articulated his plans for production (or begun programming them)I'll try to give you some idea of what's coming. I wouldn't expect that to happen for several months though.
Joel
Joel
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
A voice from the heavens! Snake's idea worked! Matrix really exists!
Thanks for the input, Joel. Your response, limited though it was, told us what we wanted to know. The production system hasn't been decided upon, and Gary is keeping mum. Okay. Maybe you should give me Gary's home phone number so I can explain to him the way it should be done. Better yet, I'll just fly out and have a meeting with the whole staff . . .
Thanks, madman. I would be disappointed if they forced everyone to use an alternative production system. I hope for the many people in your camp that it is only an option. But I'd still like to be able to decide what class of cruiser hull is being laid down. I should be able to build more of a smaller, less capable cruiser if I want.
Snake and Warpup make a point a hadn't considered. If there is no variable production, it does reduce the need to base your strategy on resources which, of course, the war was largely about for Japan. Lack of resources would affect operations to be sure, but it should also affect production tremendously. And if production is to be altered from the day to day historical production because the strategic resource picture is different than it was in history (as a result of our ability to change strategy), then I should be able to have some input into how the production is altered.
Snake, I'd want to cut back a little on your list. I understand why they're there, and you are right that a country only has finite resources and needs to distribute them according to priority. I don't think the intelligence gathering belongs because I just don't think that it requires that much in resources. I'm not sure how I feel about a general R&D pool that could improve the stats on weapons across the board. One concern is that if I have to do too much allocating, I'm too likely to screw something up but won't realize it until I'm a year into the war.
I was also going to drop the OPs for moving task forces because I considered this more of a planning issue, which doesn't require resources, than a supply issue. But, as the Allies discovered in their race across France, supplies are finite. I understand your concern that in reality, major operations require huge amounts of supply to conduct. Was it Third Reich where you only had so many attack points so you had to choose carefully where you were going to attack? There should be some kind of supply limitations on the tempo of the war, but I wouldn't know how to do it. Yours is a solution, but it just seems that using points from the same pool of points that dictates how much steel is being produced or R&D into new aircraft is wrong. If my fleets generally don't have enough fuel to conduct operations at the tempo I'd like, stopping R&D or not building a factory (by diverting points) wouldn't seem to be realistic answer to the problem. Diverting aeronautical engineers and concrete plants won't make more oil. I see the two as being divorced from one another. Your concern is more of a supply issue and not a production issue. Maybe you could divert more points to fuel refinery capacity, but that's the extent of the relationship. And not even I would want the production to be so detailed that I have to worry about refinery capacity. So I think operation points are separate from the production issue.
Thanks for the input, Joel. Your response, limited though it was, told us what we wanted to know. The production system hasn't been decided upon, and Gary is keeping mum. Okay. Maybe you should give me Gary's home phone number so I can explain to him the way it should be done. Better yet, I'll just fly out and have a meeting with the whole staff . . .
Thanks, madman. I would be disappointed if they forced everyone to use an alternative production system. I hope for the many people in your camp that it is only an option. But I'd still like to be able to decide what class of cruiser hull is being laid down. I should be able to build more of a smaller, less capable cruiser if I want.
Snake and Warpup make a point a hadn't considered. If there is no variable production, it does reduce the need to base your strategy on resources which, of course, the war was largely about for Japan. Lack of resources would affect operations to be sure, but it should also affect production tremendously. And if production is to be altered from the day to day historical production because the strategic resource picture is different than it was in history (as a result of our ability to change strategy), then I should be able to have some input into how the production is altered.
Snake, I'd want to cut back a little on your list. I understand why they're there, and you are right that a country only has finite resources and needs to distribute them according to priority. I don't think the intelligence gathering belongs because I just don't think that it requires that much in resources. I'm not sure how I feel about a general R&D pool that could improve the stats on weapons across the board. One concern is that if I have to do too much allocating, I'm too likely to screw something up but won't realize it until I'm a year into the war.
I was also going to drop the OPs for moving task forces because I considered this more of a planning issue, which doesn't require resources, than a supply issue. But, as the Allies discovered in their race across France, supplies are finite. I understand your concern that in reality, major operations require huge amounts of supply to conduct. Was it Third Reich where you only had so many attack points so you had to choose carefully where you were going to attack? There should be some kind of supply limitations on the tempo of the war, but I wouldn't know how to do it. Yours is a solution, but it just seems that using points from the same pool of points that dictates how much steel is being produced or R&D into new aircraft is wrong. If my fleets generally don't have enough fuel to conduct operations at the tempo I'd like, stopping R&D or not building a factory (by diverting points) wouldn't seem to be realistic answer to the problem. Diverting aeronautical engineers and concrete plants won't make more oil. I see the two as being divorced from one another. Your concern is more of a supply issue and not a production issue. Maybe you could divert more points to fuel refinery capacity, but that's the extent of the relationship. And not even I would want the production to be so detailed that I have to worry about refinery capacity. So I think operation points are separate from the production issue.
It is time to start another thread. I hate it when threads get too long. There are threads with more than 9000 posts on the Consim World Discussion Board. What a pain in the butt!!!
One thing about production, I'm really not disappointed with the ship and plane types that show up. Aircraft models improve steadily throughout the war. Ship classes seem logical and reasonable to me. I don't think there's a need to change these things.
What does need to be available is the opportunity to correct major mistakes in the war, at least in a fantasy campaign. The Japanese should have devoted more resources to ASW and shipping, though I understand there was a limit on Japanese capacity for marine engine production. Improved shipboard AA would be a plus, but not as important as the ASW. Maybe more heavilly armed fighters would be nice too. I can't really see anything wrong with allied production, except that the P-39 could have used a more powerful engine that would work better at high altitudes.
One thing about production, I'm really not disappointed with the ship and plane types that show up. Aircraft models improve steadily throughout the war. Ship classes seem logical and reasonable to me. I don't think there's a need to change these things.
What does need to be available is the opportunity to correct major mistakes in the war, at least in a fantasy campaign. The Japanese should have devoted more resources to ASW and shipping, though I understand there was a limit on Japanese capacity for marine engine production. Improved shipboard AA would be a plus, but not as important as the ASW. Maybe more heavilly armed fighters would be nice too. I can't really see anything wrong with allied production, except that the P-39 could have used a more powerful engine that would work better at high altitudes.
Frankly I would be quite happy with a purchase system with a pool of points and an available
list of units.
It is simple, easy to alter, and easy to playtest.
However, if Gary intends to go the TOH route
on aircraft production, that will not bother me at all.
Dont forget BTW that there IS a war going on
in China. We like to forget about it and
many say it had little impact, but I dont see
any Japanese historians saying that.
I dont know how the TOH production could be
integrated on the strategic level. However
I trust Gary to have some idea what is going on.
So you wont see the keels of 4 Yamato class
BB being laid down on 1/1/42.
I just read a Japanese source that claims
that the reason Japan signed the Naval Limitation
Treaty was that 45% of her GNP was being spent
on the Navy. That sounds suspect but if true
is an astonishing figure.
A key question would be: Will the IGN submarines
be shackled to the historical usage?
list of units.
It is simple, easy to alter, and easy to playtest.
However, if Gary intends to go the TOH route
on aircraft production, that will not bother me at all.
Dont forget BTW that there IS a war going on
in China. We like to forget about it and
many say it had little impact, but I dont see
any Japanese historians saying that.
I dont know how the TOH production could be
integrated on the strategic level. However
I trust Gary to have some idea what is going on.
So you wont see the keels of 4 Yamato class
BB being laid down on 1/1/42.
I just read a Japanese source that claims
that the reason Japan signed the Naval Limitation
Treaty was that 45% of her GNP was being spent
on the Navy. That sounds suspect but if true
is an astonishing figure.
A key question would be: Will the IGN submarines
be shackled to the historical usage?
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Joel,
Will Gary get the chance to view these postings? Might we assume some input in formulating a wish list for the game or will he 'just do it himself.' It would be nice if he read some of this.
Madflava13,
The road to recovery always starts with the first step of admitting you're mentally unstable. Aren't all us gamers? LOL I would also like a toggle since I sometimes like to play out an historical start and progression of the war.
Chiteng,
I believe the GNP figure you quoted was pretty close. I heard/saw the same on a History Channel show about battleships.
Has anyone ever played War in Flames? I liked their method of building from a force pool that could be historical or not based on the units made available. Availability is such a pool could be made to depend on research (New types), production (Quantity), Training (Quality), or other type determinants.
Byron,
I hear your argument against OP's but I was trying to come up with a simplified idea that could cover a lot of player desired variables yet still leave an option for AI control that's easily implemented. After all, supply issues are key in almost all operations.
All this may be just flapping our gums if Gary doesn't read any of these posts. It might give him some ideas.
Anyway, Joel said MONTHS AWAY.......Groan. So long a wait.................Makes you wonder if Fall 2002 will even be possible.
Will Gary get the chance to view these postings? Might we assume some input in formulating a wish list for the game or will he 'just do it himself.' It would be nice if he read some of this.
Madflava13,
The road to recovery always starts with the first step of admitting you're mentally unstable. Aren't all us gamers? LOL I would also like a toggle since I sometimes like to play out an historical start and progression of the war.
Chiteng,
I believe the GNP figure you quoted was pretty close. I heard/saw the same on a History Channel show about battleships.
Has anyone ever played War in Flames? I liked their method of building from a force pool that could be historical or not based on the units made available. Availability is such a pool could be made to depend on research (New types), production (Quantity), Training (Quality), or other type determinants.
Byron,
I hear your argument against OP's but I was trying to come up with a simplified idea that could cover a lot of player desired variables yet still leave an option for AI control that's easily implemented. After all, supply issues are key in almost all operations.
All this may be just flapping our gums if Gary doesn't read any of these posts. It might give him some ideas.
Anyway, Joel said MONTHS AWAY.......Groan. So long a wait.................Makes you wonder if Fall 2002 will even be possible.
-
Joel Billings
- Posts: 33541
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
As for Fall 2002, if we get Uncommon Valor out this year (as we hope to do) than that is still very possible for WitP. As for Gary reading the posts, I wouldn't count on it. Occasionally I send Gary posts that I think he might be interested in, but by and large Gary has a long standing policy of designing on his own and not keeping up with discussion boards. I wish I could say otherwise, but I'm not going to mislead you.
At this time, I'm not very focused on WitP, but I have been paying close attention to the Uncommon Valor board and I think I've picked up some things there that have influenced the game development. The good thing about working with Gary is that although he comes up with the basic design pretty much on his own, he is very amenable to changes during the development process. Once UV is taken care of, I'll devote time to the WitP boards.
Joel
At this time, I'm not very focused on WitP, but I have been paying close attention to the Uncommon Valor board and I think I've picked up some things there that have influenced the game development. The good thing about working with Gary is that although he comes up with the basic design pretty much on his own, he is very amenable to changes during the development process. Once UV is taken care of, I'll devote time to the WitP boards.
Joel
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Mr. Billings, thanks for responding so quickly. I don't mind that Mr. Grigsby doesn't read the posts very often, as he surely has a good head for game design. I'm happy with you and other members of the team reading the posts and submitting good ideas during the design process. Thank you for all your hard work on these games so far, and I look forward to being one of the first to buy and play UV and WiTP.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
DISCLAIMER: I am not against non-historical scenarios for those who like them, however....
The fact that the Japanese were spending nearly half their GNP on naval production, and were STILL far behind the US and UK, is another reason I dont see vast non-historical production options as a major need. Sure the Japanese made mistakes, and could have done a better job, but how much difference will it make in the long run? What could they have built had they not converted ships from one class to another?The US was so far ahead in EVERY area of production I just dont see any way, even in the best imaginable scenario for the Japanese, that they would be a threat to win.
As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, it seems to me the more detailed a production system you impliment, the more it will put the Japanese at a disadvantage. It seems to me that the Japanese could have shifted from one thing or the other, but that they could not have had actual increases of any meaningful amount in the total volume. This is an impression only, I dont have any facts on it so I could very well be wrong.
Ringbolt
The fact that the Japanese were spending nearly half their GNP on naval production, and were STILL far behind the US and UK, is another reason I dont see vast non-historical production options as a major need. Sure the Japanese made mistakes, and could have done a better job, but how much difference will it make in the long run? What could they have built had they not converted ships from one class to another?The US was so far ahead in EVERY area of production I just dont see any way, even in the best imaginable scenario for the Japanese, that they would be a threat to win.
As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, it seems to me the more detailed a production system you impliment, the more it will put the Japanese at a disadvantage. It seems to me that the Japanese could have shifted from one thing or the other, but that they could not have had actual increases of any meaningful amount in the total volume. This is an impression only, I dont have any facts on it so I could very well be wrong.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
I agree with your assesment Ringbolt. They had no chance whatever. The only REAL advantage they had, were the 600+ overtrained pilots.
I have no doubt that such men were quite valuable.
But sadly in war men die.
However:
If you are correct, does it really matter to you
if the Ryjuo can do 32 knots instead of 21?
Do you really care if Japan gets two more
Akagi class CV?
I have no doubt that such men were quite valuable.
But sadly in war men die.
However:
If you are correct, does it really matter to you
if the Ryjuo can do 32 knots instead of 21?
Do you really care if Japan gets two more
Akagi class CV?
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Ringbolt:
I think your analysis is pretty much dead on, and the Japanese never had much of a chance once the U.S. got geared up. But I can think of three reasons to have ahistorical production:
1. If I'm playing the role of a demi-god, I want the powers of one. I would just like the additional kick in the pants of being able to control production as well as the lives of men.
2. We'd discussed replayablity earlier. This game will undoubtedly stay on hard drives longer and be replayed more often if the players can alter production in a "what if" fit.
3. Admittedly, the Japanese probably could never have won the war. Presumably, though, the victory conditions won't require the Japanese to occupy Los Angeles in order to win. If the victory conditions are balanced, then being able to change production may be enable a player to improve his chances at winning - even as the Japanese. What if, for example, they had spent 10% less on their huge armies in China and devoted those resources to training navy pilots? A player is going to choose a strategy to achieve the stated victory conditions, and I see no reason why the player should not be able to tailor his forces in pursuit of that strategy.
But even if, despite my arguments, ahistorical production won't do a thing for the Japanese, it can alter the nature of the game considerably from the U.S. side.
I think your analysis is pretty much dead on, and the Japanese never had much of a chance once the U.S. got geared up. But I can think of three reasons to have ahistorical production:
1. If I'm playing the role of a demi-god, I want the powers of one. I would just like the additional kick in the pants of being able to control production as well as the lives of men.
2. We'd discussed replayablity earlier. This game will undoubtedly stay on hard drives longer and be replayed more often if the players can alter production in a "what if" fit.
3. Admittedly, the Japanese probably could never have won the war. Presumably, though, the victory conditions won't require the Japanese to occupy Los Angeles in order to win. If the victory conditions are balanced, then being able to change production may be enable a player to improve his chances at winning - even as the Japanese. What if, for example, they had spent 10% less on their huge armies in China and devoted those resources to training navy pilots? A player is going to choose a strategy to achieve the stated victory conditions, and I see no reason why the player should not be able to tailor his forces in pursuit of that strategy.
But even if, despite my arguments, ahistorical production won't do a thing for the Japanese, it can alter the nature of the game considerably from the U.S. side.
Chiteng,
No question it would make a difference early for the IJA to have two more Akagi's, say at Coral Sea, and the Ryjuo to be faster, but in the end no. Through 11/46 the US completed 24 Essex CV's alone, that's not counting prewar Lex and Enterprise class nor the Independance CVL's. I see it very similar the the Germans in the east, in that they had their big first strike, and when that failed it was down hill from there. Sheer numbers were against them.
Byron,
On #1 and 2 I agree. What if's allow re-playability to be interesting. I have often wondered how things would have changed had the U.S. only had a working contact detonator for their torpedoes or the Japanese had good Radar. With R&D control I could cut red tape and closed mindedness and fix the detonators and put good Radar on IJN ships, two reletively small changes that probably would have had huge effects.
on #3 I understand the early surrender as a necessity for the Japanese side to have a shot at getting enough victory points to win, and I would expect something like what was in Pacwar to be in WiTP. No doubt things would have been dicey with a few more divisions at Guadalcanal or Lae from China.
I think the best alternate scenarios, which are actually unrelated to production, are dependant on Euorpe. I can see a scenario where the ETO went bad and the Kriegsmarine handed the Home Fleet its arse and the U.S. had to send large amounts of ships to the Atlantic because of the Hitler first plan. You could select any amount you wanted to be diverted, say between 30-50%. That is something that could have happened before 12/41 so it could effect the whole time period of the war in the Pac. Now that would be interesting. That is not very likely to have happened, but more likely IMO than any changes in production on either the U.S. or Japanese side.
Just some ideas to throw around.
Ringbolt
No question it would make a difference early for the IJA to have two more Akagi's, say at Coral Sea, and the Ryjuo to be faster, but in the end no. Through 11/46 the US completed 24 Essex CV's alone, that's not counting prewar Lex and Enterprise class nor the Independance CVL's. I see it very similar the the Germans in the east, in that they had their big first strike, and when that failed it was down hill from there. Sheer numbers were against them.
Byron,
On #1 and 2 I agree. What if's allow re-playability to be interesting. I have often wondered how things would have changed had the U.S. only had a working contact detonator for their torpedoes or the Japanese had good Radar. With R&D control I could cut red tape and closed mindedness and fix the detonators and put good Radar on IJN ships, two reletively small changes that probably would have had huge effects.
on #3 I understand the early surrender as a necessity for the Japanese side to have a shot at getting enough victory points to win, and I would expect something like what was in Pacwar to be in WiTP. No doubt things would have been dicey with a few more divisions at Guadalcanal or Lae from China.
I think the best alternate scenarios, which are actually unrelated to production, are dependant on Euorpe. I can see a scenario where the ETO went bad and the Kriegsmarine handed the Home Fleet its arse and the U.S. had to send large amounts of ships to the Atlantic because of the Hitler first plan. You could select any amount you wanted to be diverted, say between 30-50%. That is something that could have happened before 12/41 so it could effect the whole time period of the war in the Pac. Now that would be interesting. That is not very likely to have happened, but more likely IMO than any changes in production on either the U.S. or Japanese side.
Just some ideas to throw around.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
I wasn't so much requiring an early surrender in my "balanced" victory conditions. I was more thinking that Japan could win if it isn't completely crushed by such and such a date. In other words, not a victory in any real sense, but just require the Allies to be so competent with their overwhelming superiority that they only have a 50% chance of "winning" by the game's rules.
I agree that the ETO could have an influence on the war. As you mentioned and was mentioned in another thread, it could easily effect Commonwealth force dispositions in December 1941. And, historically, British fleet strength did yo-yo based on what was going on elsewhere. I'd like to see the ETO affect the British and maybe even American strength in a variable, non-scripted manner. You would be provided one to six months advanced notice of what would be drawn away so you could plan on it. And I guess the U.S. would be affected less than the British, but there could still be some variability for D-Day or the sub war or some other random occurrence.
I agree that the ETO could have an influence on the war. As you mentioned and was mentioned in another thread, it could easily effect Commonwealth force dispositions in December 1941. And, historically, British fleet strength did yo-yo based on what was going on elsewhere. I'd like to see the ETO affect the British and maybe even American strength in a variable, non-scripted manner. You would be provided one to six months advanced notice of what would be drawn away so you could plan on it. And I guess the U.S. would be affected less than the British, but there could still be some variability for D-Day or the sub war or some other random occurrence.
Byron,
Ah, I misunderstood you. That is a very good idea, Allied have to crush by 8/45 or whatever date. I never thought of it that way, always in the Pacwar type "forced" truce. That way seems like a very good way to give either side an even shot at winning.
On Allied sea power and ETO I was thinking more of its affect on the U.S. fleet. Remeber the U.S. fleet was very involved in the war in the Atlantic far before 12/41. Since FDR and Churchill agreed on the "Hitler First" plan, I was thinking of that as a way of reducing US sea power more so than UK. Lets say in 2/41 there is a Jutland II and Germany really clobbers the Home Fleet, U.S. panics and sends large numbers to ETO so that you have half, or whatever % you wanted, of what was actually there in PTO. That way you can start in 12/41 as either side but with very different number of U.S. ships available. For gameplays sake you could even leave that level till the end of the war so the U.S. would REALLY have to focus its goals and forces. No more Nimitz vs Mac and island hopping vs Phil, you could only do one or the other.
Ringbolt
Ah, I misunderstood you. That is a very good idea, Allied have to crush by 8/45 or whatever date. I never thought of it that way, always in the Pacwar type "forced" truce. That way seems like a very good way to give either side an even shot at winning.
On Allied sea power and ETO I was thinking more of its affect on the U.S. fleet. Remeber the U.S. fleet was very involved in the war in the Atlantic far before 12/41. Since FDR and Churchill agreed on the "Hitler First" plan, I was thinking of that as a way of reducing US sea power more so than UK. Lets say in 2/41 there is a Jutland II and Germany really clobbers the Home Fleet, U.S. panics and sends large numbers to ETO so that you have half, or whatever % you wanted, of what was actually there in PTO. That way you can start in 12/41 as either side but with very different number of U.S. ships available. For gameplays sake you could even leave that level till the end of the war so the U.S. would REALLY have to focus its goals and forces. No more Nimitz vs Mac and island hopping vs Phil, you could only do one or the other.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Yup. I still think the British were more likely to be affected - at least at the beginning. Their fleet was certainly more involved in keeping the Germans bottled up in the North Sea and tangling with the Italians in the Med. In addition, they had North Africa that needed support. I think the Brits were more likely to suffer a major blow in the ETO than the U.S. But once the Allies started into mainland Europe, then any one operation could tap Pacific forces. The exception I see is the sub war; if that weren't going well, the U.S. may have drained destroyers or jeep carriers from the Pacific.
Byron & Ringbolt,
I find myself agreeing with the idea of "draining off" US forces to compensate for losses in the Atlantic/Med/Africa theatre... Only one question though- does the draining off of capital ships have a trickle down effect ie; existing task forces removed or only those ships as Ringbolt was stating coming off production lines?
Its acceptable as a substitution production plan, and it can be easily toggled on/off, so it meets the basic needs...wonder if it can include all types of craft & supplies??? Any ideas?
Just a thought
Jim
I find myself agreeing with the idea of "draining off" US forces to compensate for losses in the Atlantic/Med/Africa theatre... Only one question though- does the draining off of capital ships have a trickle down effect ie; existing task forces removed or only those ships as Ringbolt was stating coming off production lines?
Its acceptable as a substitution production plan, and it can be easily toggled on/off, so it meets the basic needs...wonder if it can include all types of craft & supplies??? Any ideas?
Just a thought
Jim
My two cents on victory.
Sure, the IJN probably can't "Win" but I would enjoy playing to the end and finding I racked up twice as many ship kills or expanded farther and faster. I've seen many games where you may get a tactical or marginal 'victory' even though you lost because you did better than history. I don't like games that just end in the middle because some objectives have been obtained. A smart commander might retake them later on a 'shoestring budget' or cause more trouble.
What if's make that possible. Like what if Germany held out and got the bomb?? I understand the Japanese were working on protoypes as well but the research/materials were sunk in the sea off Korea enroute to the home islands in the closing days. They also were working on chemical and biological weapons to defend the home islands. A fact that's rarely mentioned because they tested such weapons on our POW's yet we never pursued war crimes against the Japanese. Such is politics which only prosecutes the guilty when it's politically advantageous to do so.
That's off the subject but YES 'What-ifs' definitely make a game replayable and control of production is a key aspect for that. Just look at all the posts generated in War in Russia, Pacific War, and elsewhere concerning production!
Sure, the IJN probably can't "Win" but I would enjoy playing to the end and finding I racked up twice as many ship kills or expanded farther and faster. I've seen many games where you may get a tactical or marginal 'victory' even though you lost because you did better than history. I don't like games that just end in the middle because some objectives have been obtained. A smart commander might retake them later on a 'shoestring budget' or cause more trouble.
What if's make that possible. Like what if Germany held out and got the bomb?? I understand the Japanese were working on protoypes as well but the research/materials were sunk in the sea off Korea enroute to the home islands in the closing days. They also were working on chemical and biological weapons to defend the home islands. A fact that's rarely mentioned because they tested such weapons on our POW's yet we never pursued war crimes against the Japanese. Such is politics which only prosecutes the guilty when it's politically advantageous to do so.
That's off the subject but YES 'What-ifs' definitely make a game replayable and control of production is a key aspect for that. Just look at all the posts generated in War in Russia, Pacific War, and elsewhere concerning production!
Mr. Moore:
I think the idea of switching resources between theatres is probably best done with active forces and not with things in production. It would only complicate production (more places for bugs) when the easy fix is to snatch the ship right when it is released into the force pool. Ringbolt's idea may have been more to do with combat losses in the ETO; mine was related more to operations like D-Day or Torch where they may temporarily strip assets from you, but they are returned six months later. Either way, I think you should get a little bit of warning that the Nevada and the Washington will be removed as of the first day of x month. That way you can plan for it. I don't think an ensign showed up with a writ of possession signed by Eisenhower demanding turnover of the Washington within 48 hours or else.
Snake: I agree with you. You should be able to play beyond a decisive victory. Conduct Operation Olympic (Olympus?) just to make sure they get the point, right? Yeah, nothing more annoying than to spend six months planning and preparing for the Big Battle only to have the game end because some sub sank a rowboat that put the victory points over the top. I think in Gary's more recent games, once you've won you get a big celebration screen, but you are asked whether you wish to continue playing. Maybe someone could confirm that.
I think the idea of switching resources between theatres is probably best done with active forces and not with things in production. It would only complicate production (more places for bugs) when the easy fix is to snatch the ship right when it is released into the force pool. Ringbolt's idea may have been more to do with combat losses in the ETO; mine was related more to operations like D-Day or Torch where they may temporarily strip assets from you, but they are returned six months later. Either way, I think you should get a little bit of warning that the Nevada and the Washington will be removed as of the first day of x month. That way you can plan for it. I don't think an ensign showed up with a writ of possession signed by Eisenhower demanding turnover of the Washington within 48 hours or else.
Snake: I agree with you. You should be able to play beyond a decisive victory. Conduct Operation Olympic (Olympus?) just to make sure they get the point, right? Yeah, nothing more annoying than to spend six months planning and preparing for the Big Battle only to have the game end because some sub sank a rowboat that put the victory points over the top. I think in Gary's more recent games, once you've won you get a big celebration screen, but you are asked whether you wish to continue playing. Maybe someone could confirm that.